Previous Post
Next Post

In these days of dashcams and cell cams, more and more gun violence is caught on tape. Yet the mainstream media censors the resulting material to “spare” viewers ghastly images of gun gore. Why? Why shouldn’t these gatekeepers provide an unfiltered look at what happens when lead meets flesh? Evidence suggests the taboo will soon be toast. “A judge has ruled that the media will be given access to the videotape of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself in the head at a gun show,” reports. “Judge Peter Velis said Monday there is no legal reason to prohibit media access to the video. Prosecutors and defense attorneys objected.” [Emphasis added.] They won’t, but should the someone in the MSM show Christopher Bizilj’s horrific death? TTAG will (if we can), but should we?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Gruesome footage of people leaping to their death from the burning world trade center was censored by media because it might inflame hostilities against terrorists.

    Gruesome footage of people dying from accidental gunshots will be shown because it might incite people to ban guns.

    That’s our media – no better than snakes.

    For the love of God, Robert, don’t fall into their trap and don’t show that footage. It serves no purpose. You should have higher standards.

  2. I read recently the case of a girl who took her dad’s Porche (without permission) and went for a 100 MPH drive. She lost control and hit a toll booth. The EMS guys took pictures of the scene (as they are supposed to). Two supervisors emailed the pictures of her mangled corpse to friends (as they are NOT supposed to) and the pictures ended up on the Internet. Her family saw them. And sued. The case was thrown out of court by some idiot judge, then reinstated on appeal.

    I’d make a couple of points, playing Devil’s Advocate for both sides:

    If we are focused on “scooping” the competition, titillating for the sake of ratings, or showing them just to get a reaction, I’d say…NO. But, if there’s a valid reason to show them – i.e.: analysis of a crime scene, proving that it was a righteous shoot, or something like that, I’d say…perhaps. This would assume that the pictures have been released, through the proper channels, to the public, and that the family of the victim is okay with it. (If it’s a dead perp, I have a lot less sympathy for the family.)

    Overall, I’d say my default position would be ‘there’s no reason to show them’ unless we find a compelling reason that people need to see them.

  3. I believe that you should show this video, (I won’t be able to watch) because hopefully it can teach anyone who does watch a very important lesson about firearms safety and responsbility. P.S. The reason why I won’t be able to watch the video is that I most certainly would have nightmares seeing what happened to that poor boy.

Comments are closed.